9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 1005X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... defects. Difference of turnover between P L account and balance sheet, on the one hand, and GSTR-9, on the other - HELD THAT:- As contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, the assessing officer has recorded findings without applying his mind to the fact that the turnover for an entity operating in multiple States in India, as reflected in the financial statements, and the turnover attributable to its operations in Tamil Nadu would vary. From the findings, it also appears that tax liability was imposed merely because the Chartered Accountant's certificate did not provide State-wise turnover. This finding does not stand to reason because only the bifurcation of total and Tamil Nadu turnover is germane. It also appears that GST has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order came to be issued. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the findings in the impugned order relating to defect No.10, which pertains to the difference of turnover between P L account and balance sheet, on the one hand, and GSTR-9, on the other. He points out that the assessee had explained that the difference arises as a result of the fact that the financial statements pertain to the operation of the entity at a Pan India level, whereas the GSTR-9 return is limited to the turnover in Tamil Nadu. For purposes of providing information relating to the turnover specific to Tamil Nadu, he submitted that a certificate from a Chartered Accountant specifying such turnover was submitted. In spite of providing such docum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble rate of 18%. Even with regard to GST at 18%, from the return placed on record by the petitioner, it appears that the tax liability in respect of the turnover of Rs. 80,89,05,068/- was duly discharged. The total tax imposed under this head is about Rs. 14.56 crores and the patent errors justify interference with the assessment order even without examining the order in respect of other defects for which liability was imposed. Therefore, the impugned assessment order cannot be sustained. 6. Accordingly, the impugned assessment order is quashed in so far as defect Nos.1, 4, 5, 7, 10 and 11 are concerned and the matter is remanded for reconsideration. The assessing officer is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
